Democrats Threaten Government Shut Down

In response to the House Democrats' deputy leader, Rep. Steny Hoyers' statement that,”...we're not going to be held hostage to do things that we think are contrary to the best interests of the American people...”, I believe you lack an understanding of the term 'hostage'.

It is you and your party, sir, that is holding the government budget in limbo, or hostage, if you prefer, in order to get your own way. By refusing to even consider the concessions offered by the Republicans, you are no longer operating in good faith on behalf of American citizens.

And, just what do you consider the best interests of the American people? You are willing to shut down the government, meaning people will be placed on indefinite leave, or working without pay for an indefinite period, for what purpose? To provide even greater protection for non-citizens who are living in this country illegally.

Basically, you're telling your constituency, the people who put you in office to work on their behalf, you're telling them they are worth less than those who are here without authorization. Less than those who have no understanding of American laws, culture, values. Why are these non-citizens entitled to your protection when your own law-abiding, U.S. born are not?

Peaceful Transfer of Power?

Why all the hateful rhetoric, violent protesting, and congressional stonewalling? The current Republican administration, duly elected, and working to keep campaign promises, is following a belief system of Individualism.

The same ideal in which the Founding Fathers believed. It is this ideal that was set forth in the Declaration, and Constitution in order to create a country in which the individual’s rights to life, liberty, property, and the pursuit of happiness were to be recognized and protected.

The belief that the individual has an inalienable right to act on his own judgment, to keep and use the products created through his efforts, to build and keep his own economic independence. This is the ideal to which the current administration holds, and is attempting to return to this country.

The Democrats ideological shift toward Collectivism, on the other hand, does not allow for the individual to have a voice. They believe the individual is subject to the society in which he lives. He has no individual rights, only those society permits him to have, and must sacrifice his values and goals for the groups' greater good, regardless of the loss of individual freedom and choice.

Not what the Founding Fathers had in mind when they fought to break away, to create a new path to individual worth and prosperity.

Not Semantics and It Does Matter

I've noticed an unfortunate trend in recent years in which all foreign born individuals residing, permanently, or otherwise, in the United States are referred to as 'immigrant'. As an author, I am, perhaps, a bit more interested, concerned, and annoyed by the words used in any particular context, but this topic really irks me, primarily because it muddies the subject, and I believe words should be used to clarify and edify, not confuse, nor mislead.

Immigrant, as found within the Merriam-Websters Dictionary, is defined as a person who comes to live permanently as a legally recognized and lawfully recorded resident in a foreign country. English Oxford Dictionaries states: A person who chooses to assimilate, to become absorbed and integrated into a society, or culture. (emphasis is mine)

In other words, an immigrant has chosen to leave behind the culture, laws, and traditions of the country of their birth for the purpose of finding a new way of life. To accept new laws, culture, and traditions for the sake of freedom, prosperity, a sound future for their children. None of these things will come about through the blatant disregard of the laws of their new home.

Within the home some traditions should be passed down to future generations. Language, the history of a country left behind. Nothing that is in direct conflict with the laws of their new home should be considered worth keeping, especially those that produced the decision to leave the old country in the first place, nor those that will prevent future generations from enjoying the liberties and freedoms of the country they now owe allegiance to.

A Migrant,on the other hand, is not an immigrant. Merriam-Webster defines a migrant as a person who moves regularly in order to find work. The English Oxford Dictionaries declares migrant as a person who moves to another country, or area to find temporary employment. (Emphasis my own).

A migrant worker does not reside permanently in a foreign country. They do not wish to become a citizen, to assimilate, to adopt the culture and traditions of the country in which they are employed. They owe no allegiance to any country but their own. They are here for work, a paycheck, nothing more. When the job is finished, they return home. They should never be confused with an immigrant. They are not entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen. They are entitled to respect, a safe work environment, and timely payment, that's it.

Illegal Alien, first, let's break this down – According to the English Oxford Dictionary Illegal is contrary to, or forbidden by law, especially criminal law. Alien is defined as belonging to a foreign country. In Merriam-Webster, Illegal is not according to, nor authorized by law. Alien is relating, belonging, or owing allegiance to another country, or government. (emphasis is mine).

Illegal alien is, by definition, a foreign national who has crossed the border into a sovereign nation by avoiding lawful entry points, and is living without authorization in a country of which they are not a citizen, and to which they owe no allegiance. They are not entitled to the rights and privileges of a citizen. They are entitled to humane treatment and swift deportation.

And now to the point that really irks me. The repetitious, and erroneous statement that this country was founded by immigrants. None of the founders were immigrants. They were colonists. Here's a definition: Colonist(s) a people sent to a place to establish political control over it. To settle among and establish control over the indigenous people of an area. To appropriate a place or domain for one's own use. (English Oxford Dictionaries).

The founders were citizens of, and owed allegiance to whichever country sent them here. England, France, Spain, and the Dutch all laid claim to some part of what became the United States. This is why the declaration for independence was seen as treasonous. It was only after the establishment, and recognition of the United States as a sovereign nation, and most particularly after the ratification in 1868 of the 14^th amendment, did immigrants seek to renounce their place of origin in order to start anew in the United States.

So, please, it's not just semantics, and it really does matter.

Here we go again - UNDER CONSTRUCTION; THANK YOU FOR YOUR PATIENCE

Welcome

So, my first post of useless justifications - welcome. Yes, I've heard blogs are a thing of the past. Outdated. Outmoded. Replaced by the blink-and-it's-passed sound bites of twitter, and photo-stories of Snapchat. However, as an aspiring author, I felt the need for a web page upon which to promote my books, and short story anthologies (when they come to be published), but a blank, or largely white-spaced page seemed a bit too bland, hence the need for a "place-holder" - a blog.

I'm not very good at this sort of thing, but I'm learning, and if the posts come across as trying a bit too hard - I probably am. Maybe you could peruse the site for a laugh, a cautionary tale of what not to do, or maybe just connect with someone else moving through life, learning as she goes.

I ask only that you be patient with my efforts, respectful in your comments, and, in the words of the inimitable Wil Wheaton - don't be a dick.